Thee published
list of his writings contains over one thousand titles. Although
very many of these are brief notices and critical reviews, and
a considerable number are reports and other official publications,
there still remain two hundred which are formal contributions
to scientific literature.

His work
in ornithology was, perhaps, the most extensive and that which
contributed more than any other to his reputation; for although
he published only eight papers, several of them were monographic,
and so exhaustive and critical in their character that their
publication was epoch-making.

The first
of his large works, the "Birds of North America," which constituted
the ninth volume of the reports of the Pacific Railroad Survey,
was published in 1858, a quarto work of more than one thousand
pages, which for twenty years remained the principal authority.
Indeed, this and his "Review" are still regarded by every
American ornithologist as absolutely indispensable for constant
reference. Coues has declared that with this publication began
the "Bairdian Period" in American ornithology, a period covering
almost thirty years and characterized by an activity without
a parallel in the history of the science. "It represents the
most important single step ever taken in the progress of American
ornithology in all that relates to the technicalities. The
nomenclature is entirely remodeled from that of the immediately
preceding Audubonian period, and for the first time brought
abreast of the then existing aspect of the case. It was adopted
by the Smithsonian Institution, and thousands of separately
printed copies of the 'List of Species'were distributed during
succeeding years to institutions and individuals; the names
came at onceinto almost universal emloy, and so continued,
with scarcely appreciably diminished force, until about 1872."

The hands
of so great a work, from the hands of a most methodical, learned,
and sagacious naturalist, aided by two of the leading ornithologists
of America [John Cassin and George N. Lawrence], exerted an
influence perhaps stronger and more widely felt than that
of any of its predecessors, Audubon's and Wilson's not excepted,
and marked an epoch in the history of American ornithology.
The synonymy and specific characters, original in this work,
have been used again and again by subsequent writers, with
various modification and abridgment, and are in fact a large
basis of the technical portion of the subsequent `History
of North American Birds' by Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway. Such
a monument of original research is likely to remain for an
indefinite period a source of inspiration to lesser writers,
while its authority as a source of reference will always endure."

In pursuance
of the same thought, Coues, Stejneger, Dall, and Ridgway have
united in the characterization of what they call the "Bairdian
School of Ornithologists"; a school characterized by exactitude
in matters of fact, conciseness in deductive statement, and
careful analysis of the subject in all its various bearings;
a school whose work is marked by a careful separation of the
data from the conclusions derived from them, so that the conclusions
or arguments can be traced back to their sources and duly
weighed.

As Doctor
Stejneger has shown, the writings of the older European naturalists
afford little basis for analysis, and the investigator has
no recourse but to accept an author's statements and conclusions
on his own responsibility.

It is scarcely
probable that any American naturalist would have ventured
to claim for a fellow-countryman so radical an advance in
scientific method, but I am not aware that the generalization
of Stejneger has met with any opposition abroad. Indeed, during
the twelve years which have passed since Stejneger's characterization
of the Bairdian School, its methods have been generally adopted
among advanced workers on the other side of the Atlantic.

The development
of this school was due not alone to the publication of the
"Birds of North America," but still more to the direct influence
of its author, exerted by personal intercourse and by correspondence
upon a large number of American naturalists and collectors,
and it is due in part to his influence that ornithology is
to-day being pursued in this country by a larger number of
competent and well-equipped naturalists than any other branch
of natural history.

The publication
of the "Review of American Birds" was begun in 1864, but never
completed, having ceased with the issue of the first volume.
This has been described by competent authorities as a work
of unequaled merit, displaying in their perfection the author's
wonderful powers of analysis and synthesis -- a work which
has received unstinted praise from all competent to estimate
it, and one which has made a more profound impression on foreign
ornithologists than any other single work on American birds.

There were
numerous minor contributions to ornithology, but no other
great one from his unaided pen. The monumental "History of
North American Birds," in five volumes, by Baird, Brewer,
and Ridgway, presented fully the results of the Bairdian School
up to 1874; and his favorite pupil and assistant, Mr. Ridgway,
is now engaged upon a most important systematic treatise,
which, as a summary of all that is known of the morphology
and classification of the birds of north and middle America,
will, when it is published, repeat in its effect the volume
of 1858.

In his
early years he published many minor papers upon the mammals
of the West, and in 1857 appeared the eighth volume of the
Pacific Railroad Survey Reports, which was devoted almost
entirely to the mammals of North America. Nearly forty years
have elapsed, and still no general work has been published
to take its place. Everything which has been said in previous
pages about his "Birds of North America," published in the
same series in the following year, applies with equal or greater
force to his work upon the mammals. The greatest of living
American mammalogists said to the writer not long ago, that
in his work to-day, when he had a description by Baird before
him, he did not deem it essential to examine the specimen
to which it related; something, he added, which he could not
say about any other writer.1 [To illustrate his methods of
work and the facility which he acquired with practice, it
may be stated that he began the mammal volume in Elizabethtown,
New York, August, 1853, and finished printing October, 1859;
having in the last instance written about two thousand quarto
pages of original matter of the most technical character within
a period of eleven months, and put it through the press in
the three which followed.]

In the
field of herpetology Professor Baird was still more of a pioneer,
and, with the exception of Cope, to whom he resigned the field
in 1859, as his chosen successor, his formal memoirs in this
department were more extensive than those of any other. In
his day material did not exist for a comprehensive work covering
the entire continent, but in his elaborate reports upon the
collections of the transcontinental surveys, and in his catalogue
of North American Serpents in the collection of the Smithsonian
Institution, as well as in his scattered papers, he very nearly
covered the same field which was occupied by his two great
volumes on birds and mammals.

Nearly
two hundred new species and numerous new genera of reptiles
were discovered and named by him, either under his own name
or in association with his assistant, Charles Girard. To illustrate
the fundamental character of this work, it may be said that
when the great collection of snakes, containing several thousand
specimens, was taken up for study, each specimen was individualized
by attaching a number tag, which served as a key to its locality.
They were all then thrown into one great pile, and by a process
of comparison with absolute disregard for what had been previously
written, assorted, first into families, then into genera,
and then into species and varieties. After this had been done,
descriptions and analytical keys were prepared and provisional
names were given to each. Last of all, the books were consulted
in order to determine which of them had already been described
and provided with names. Never in the history of zoology has
a continent been classified in a manner so free from complications
of previous discussion.

He published
little on the morphology and classification of fishes. A few
papers, in association with Girard, upon new forms found in
the fresh-waters of the Southwest, and a report upon the fishes
observed upon the coast of New Jersey and Long Island during
the summer of 1854, were early and useful pieces of work,
though not especially significant.

After he
became Commissioner of Fisheries his time was so occupied
that he was obliged to carry on his studies through the agency
of others. In his first annual report, however, - that for
1871, - he discussed the life-histories of two important economic
species, the bluefish and scuppaug. These were the beginning
of a new method in ichthyological work, and served as a model
and guide for all the more recent American students. These
essays were life-histories of the most comprehensive type.
In them he discussed geographical range, migrations, movements,
habits of life, phenomena of reproduction and growth, questions
of food, enemies, temperature, and all the manifold relationships
of each form to its environment. Then followed a discussion
of the relation of these fishes to man, the relative destructiveness
of different methods of capture, and the effects of these
methods in the past. The evidence in regard to the diminution
of numbers was critically examined, and the statistics for
the region, with which he was familiar, were treated in an
exhaustive manner. A life-history equal to that of the bluefish,
then printed, has never been written by any other naturalist.
(4.1 hours)

It was
his intention to have continued this series of papers, and
had the scope of the Fish Commission not been subsequently
expanded so as to include artificial culture, he would probably
have been able to do this for all the fishes of the Atlantic
coast. His material in regard to the herring and menhaden
was particularly abundant and important.

After six
years of waiting, however, he decided that it was impossible
for him to give his personal attention to work of this kind,
and in 1877 he proposed to me to take up the work, at the
same time handing over a great mass of classified material
-- his own observations supplemented by letters and abstracts
relating to all the economic fishes of the United States.
This was the foundation of the somewhat voluminous publication
entitled "The Fishery Industries of the United States," which
was published under his direction by the writer and a staff
of associates.

Although
he had abandoned this portion of the work, he by no means
lost interest in it, but had in preparation at the time of
his death a paper which, had he completed it, would have been
one of the most important contributions to the literature
of the fishes ever issued, dealing as it did in the broadest
and most philosophical manner with the principles underlying
the whole subject of fishery economy.

He attempted
in later years no personal work upon the fishes, but he saw
every specimen obtained by the Commission and inspected every
collection, as soon as it was received, with eager enthusiasm.
He was often the first to detect undescribed or novel forms,
and knew more about them all than the men whom he designated
to write accounts of them.

It was
also with the invertebrates, especially in the early years,
before the extension of the investigation into the deep sea
brought in such an overwhelming wealth of new material. It
was so in the museum in every department, and each of his
associates knew that he was many times competent to do the
work which he had made over to the others.

Particularly
keen was his insight into North American archaeology. The
great collection of the Smithsonian Institution grew up under
his hands, and up to the time of his death every single object
was handled by him as soon as it was received. No one was
so quick to perceive a new fact or so keen in the detection
of a fraud, and although he never published a formal contribution
to archaeology, there was in his day no archaeologist who
was so learned. He was, indeed, an "all-around" naturalist
-- one of the last of a school which has now almost ceased
to exist.

But that
he, like Professor Henry, was willing to give up the pleasure
of doing things himself, in order that he might provide the
means by which hundreds of others might be enabled to work,
the sum total of his contributions to science would have been
much greater.

It was
his self-chosen task to amass material for research, to secure
the money for the prosecution of studies upon it, to select
the men, to train them and point out to them the results to
be accomplished, to watch their progress, and, when satisfied
that an adequate result had been reached, to secure its publication.
Like most men of active mind, he delighted to enter unfamiliar
regions, to become thoroughly familiar with all that was known,
and to begin some research in each field in order to satisfy
himself of his competency to enter it if he chose. This having
been done, he was quite willing to hand over his accumulations
of notes and material to some one else, and to this trait
of his character many naturalists since prominent have owed
their first establishment in the fields of research which
they have since occupied.

Reference
has been made to the characteristics of the Bairdian Period
and the School of Ornithology, which have been recognized.
No one has proposed similar periods and schools in other departments
of zoology, but in mammals particularly there is even more
justification for the use of these terms, for his influence
is here even more dominant to the present day. Indeed, these
terms might well be extended to cover the entire field of
systematic zoology in North America, in which he has been
even more prominent than was his contemporary Agassiz in the
related fields of animal morphology.

VII.

The most
judicious estimate of the biological work of Baird is, perhaps,
that presented by Doctor Billings in his memoir read before
the National Academy in 1889.

Doctor
Billings points out that his writings contain not merely descriptions
of a large number of new species, but a general revision of
the classification and nomenclature, and that the principles
upon which these were founded have for the most part stood
the test of time, showing the keenness of his insight into
what may be called "fundamental morphology." His larger works
are still standards of reference, and the additions which
have been made to them are mainly the work of his own pupils
or of those who have been trained in his methods. His work
was necessarily confined to descriptive morphology, systematization,
and nomenclature, but his early training as a field naturalist
entirely removed him from the category of mere species describers.
His determinations were founded mainly on bones and skins,
which formed the bulk of the material available at the time.

"It is
not," continues Doctor Billings, "an easy matter to estimate
fairly the importance of this kind of work and the influence
which it has on scientific progress and general culture, and
it is very likely under- or over-valued by those who are not
familiar with the study of living organisms. Classification,
description, and naming of different forms are the essential
foundations of scientific biology, for until this has been
done identification of particular forms is either difficult
or impossible, cooperative work on the part of scattered students
is greatly restricted, and broad generalizations can only
be put in the form of theories and conjectures. Such work
as was done by Professor Baird in this direction gives a starting
point to many observers and investigators in different localities,
stimulates farther inquiry, and, when done on the extensive
scale on which he did it, based on the examination and comparison
of a large number of specimens from widely different localities,
exercises exercises a powerful influence for years to come
on lines of exploration, collection, and critical research.
To those who have never tried it, it may seem an easy matter
to sort out specimens of different kinds when a large number
are brought together, or to prepare descriptions sufficient
to enable another man to identify his specimen; but in reality
it requires not only much experience and careful study, but
a certain aptitude, power of grasping salient points, and
of putting aside unessentials such as are rarely possessed
by any man."

As an example
of Professor Baird's ability in generalization, Doctor Billings
cites his paper on the distribution and migrations of North
American birds. In this he maps out the country into regions
corresponding to the distribution of different kinds of birds;
discusses the relations of these regions to surface topography,
altitude, temperature, mountain chains, etc.; points out that
there are certain correspondences in the distribution of reptiles
and fishes, and draws the conclusion that North American birds
of wide distribution in latitude, whether migrants or residents,
will be found to be larger the higher the latitude of their
place of birth; that specimens from the Pacific coast are
apt to be darker than those from the interior, and that specimens
from near the line of junction of two well-marked provinces
or regions often show the influence of hybridization. When
he comes to discuss migrations, it is their relations to the
laws of the winds of the Northern Hemisphere that he studies
them, and concludes that the transfer of American birds to
Europe is maninly due to air currents.

He did
not himself produce much of this sort of scientific literature,
for he had not the opportunity, since at the very period of
his career when he was best fitted to make such studies, he
had to give almost his whole time and energy to routine administrative
duties. "This paper alone," says Billings, " is sufficient
evidence of his capacity for generalization from a series
of isolated facts."

"The two
men," continues Billings, "who have exerted the strongest
influence upon natural history studies in this country are
Louis Agassiz and Professor Baird. In many respects they were
very unlike; circumstances gave them widely different fields,
and they worked on different plans and by different methods.
They began their public career in this country almost together;
but Agassiz was already famous as the result of seventeen
years' incessant work, while Baird was an almost unknown youth.
Agassiz was a born teacher, a fascinating lecturer, gifted
with eloquence which won its way everywhere; Baird could only
speak freely in the presence of a few, and for the most part
taught only by the pen and by example. Each of them created
a great museum in spite of many obstacles, the first winning
the means largely from private contributions, which were a
tribute to his eloquence; the second gaining his end more
indirectly, through his connection with the Smithsonian Institution
and government. Each of them gathered around him young men
who were stimulated and encouraged by his example, who followed
his methods, have continued his work, and have taught others,
so that there are now observers and workers almost everywhere.
The first made great use of the microscope and embryology;
the second very little, for he had to use the material available.
The first had a vivid imagination which led him to frame many
theories and hypotheses to be verified or disproved by future
investigation and research; the second classified the facts
before him, but theorized very little. Professor Baird's career
as an original investigator was hampered and finally stopped
by his administrative work, but in proportion as this latter
increased he was able to furnish materials and opportunities
for others. The pupils of Agassiz and Baird are the working
naturalists of to-day and the teachers of those who are to
come, and the two methods of study are being combined and
developed to produce results of which we already have good
reason to be proud, and the end of which no man can foresee."